Explain Judicial Review using two case examples.As soon as civilizations created constitutions, actions were being called unconstitutional by those who opposed them. In some instances, unconstitutional acts were the subject of revolution, regicide, or as happened in the American political system, the declaration of a Judiciary body. American judicial review can broadly be defined as the power of this such judicial branch of the government to determine whether or not the acts of all branches of the government and government official comply with the Constitution. It derives from the doctrine of "judicial supremacy", which in turn legitimises this definition by declaring that "both the letter and spirit of the Court's constitutional determinations bind all branches of government and government officials." (Siegel, Ely, McCloskey). Originating as far back as the late 1700's, this practice of judicial review, has allowed judges, thus, to maintain limited government and the rule of the people and to uphold the supremacy of the Constitution, by using the power allocated to them "to declare "null and void" any acts of the national government or of the states which they themselves deem contrary to the Constitution." (Irish and Prothro, 522). Thus, in effect the law becomes "what the judges say it is" (Irish and Prothro, 522).

Judicial Review as we know it today, (an act exercised by both the state and federal judiciary alike, and untimely the Supreme Court) has its roots firmly planted in the later half of the nineteenth century, several years indeed before the monumentally important and frequently cited case of Marbury Vs Madison of 1903. While the Founding Fathers (farmers and arbitraries alike) didn't explicitly spell out the power of judicial review in the Constitution, "they probably intended the judiciary to have such powers" (Irish and Prothro, 523). They weren't completely utopian in their views, however, and probably realised of their own volition that "to sacrifice constitutional government and compromise the rule of law in the hope of rectifying injustices is to strike a bargain with the devil." (Dr. Robert P. George). Instead, it was from Section 5, the later added separation clause to the Vermont Constitution, that the practice of judicial review was informally legitimised in 1786. This separation of powers was also known as the Judiciary Act. This Act itself however, has its origins even further back in the annals of American history. It was unquestionably influenced by the work of the Fist Council of Censors, who, as far back as 1785, detested the practice of so-called legislation for individuals. In retaliation they readily agreed (on numerous occasions) to hear the complaints of dissatisfied parties fresh from court and enact law to relieve them, even when (and often though) their decisions frequently attempted to undo what the court had previously done. Indeed, "some might think it took the Council of Censors to start the engine of judicial review." (Paul S. Gillies).

It was the aforementioned case of Marbury Vs. Madison, however, which formally legitimised judicial review in 1903. Chief Justice John Marshall (the presiding judge) famously asserted that, " the theory of every such government must be that an act of the legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void." (Patrick 2001, 206). The thought behind such a statement was undoubtedly that, if the Constitution is understood to be the supreme law of the land, then it follows that when, given the power to do so, the Supreme court ought to favour the constitution when any conflict arises between ordinary law and the Constitution. The premise of Marshall's argument was based on an amalgam of three intertwining, yet paradoxically contradictory element of (dominant) Republican political culture; popular sovereignty, judicial independence and fundamental law. Popular sovereignty reflects a situation where people as authors of the Constitution allowed...

YOU MAY ALSO FIND THESE DOCUMENTS HELPFUL

...JudicialReview: A Double-Edged Sword
JudicialReview: A Double-Edged Sword
1. Traditional theories of judicialreview hold that neutral or principled grounds are the only legitimate bases for judicial decisions and reject political motives in judicial decision-making. Do you believe this is true? Do you see principled v. political motives in important U.S. Supreme Court constitutional decisions which overturn laws passed by legislatures (such as restrictions on gun ownership, or marijuana use)?
The U.S. Supreme Court justices cannot escape the fact that they are appointed to the Supreme Court by a president with political motivations and enviably will make decisions they feel are principle but might easily been seen political to those who don't share their particular viewpoint or stance. For instance, in the landmark decision made by the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn segregation in America’s public schools was based on the case of Brown v. Board of Education which was to challenge and change the racist practice set by state legislatures of ‘separate but equal’ as it related to unfair and unequal school settings for black children in many U.S. states. According to a book review by Cline (2011):
Brown was initially criticized by many as a severe kind of...

...﻿
Sad for all the wrong reasons
Unfortunately Zeffirelli’s Romeo and Juliet fails to reach any great heights
It’s one of Shakespeare’s best known plays, a tragedy of epic proportions with much to tell us about society, humanity, love, life and death. It features the most well-renowned and celebrated lovers from the vast, dusty pages of Western literature. It presents some of the most famous and recognisable lines ever uttered on a stage — ‘O Romeo, Romeo! wherefore art thou Romeo?’. The play is a masterpiece and any director who wishes to bring it to the silver screen certainly benefits from the strength of the existing material. So why is it that Franco Zeffirelli’s 1968 screen version of Romeo and Juliet doesn’t quite hit the mark?
A film interpretation of this work of genius should have the audience gasping in shock, balancing precariously on the edge of their seats, laughing and crying (sometimes all at once). Zeffirelli never quite achieves these reactions, although, he sometimes comes close.
The movie definitely starts strongly. Young audiences will appreciate the action of the opening scene where hot-blooded Capulets and Montagues go at it hammer and tongs. Zeffirelli’s editing and use of the camera enhances the action here. We are subjected to a series of fast-paced cuts that periodically frame the chaos in extreme long shots, which clearly illustrates the extent of the ruckus. Market stalls explode in a shower of fresh produce and dust, bodies fold...

...JudicialReview
The Judicial Branch is one of the three branches of government, established in the United States Constitution. The Judicial Branch is a dual court system consisting of States Courts, and the Federal Courts, each have their specific jurisdiction. The States Courts hear all cases within the State. The Federal Courts only hear cases involving a Federal issue, an appeal from a lower courts decision and cases involving diversity of citizenship. Diversity of citizenship cases involve people from different states, cases that involve a United States Citizen and a foreign government, or cases that have two states against each other. The Federal and States Courts also have specific court districts within their jurisdictions.
The Federal Courts, Supreme Court is the highest court in The United States, so all Federal And States Court must abide by their decisions. The Supreme Court checks the Legislative and Executive Branches by determining whether action taken and laws passed by Congress and the President are Constitutional. This authority is known as JudicialReview.
The first time, The Supreme Court used their power of JudicialReview to check the Legislative Branch was in 1803, in the Marbury V. Madison Case. In this case...

...supreme power is vested in the people and is exercised directly by the people or by its elected agents. Countries such as Japan, the United States’, and the United Kingdom, all have democratic forms of government. Judicialreview is a part of democracy where a higher level court can reviewcases involving laws and make those laws invalid. It is an important part of the checks and balances in a democracy to limit power. Through the power of judicialreview, the Court is charged with assuring citizens’ individual rights as guaranteed to them. Judicialreview is important for democracy, but on the other hand, some feel as though judicialreview is undemocratic. Although the United States was the first country to practice judicialreview, the United Kingdom possesses the most democratic judicial system.
Judicialreview has many positive benefits and is significant to a country’s judiciary. In the case of Marbury vs. Madison, decided by the John Marshall Court in America in 1803, officials argued that the court system, as a whole, and the Supreme Court, which is the top court of the land, has the power to decide if a government law, regulation or action was Constitutional because the court system is the place where all legal matters are decided....

...civil right and liberties with judicial activism.
When the rights of the American citizen are on the line than the judiciary should utilize the powers invested in them to protect and enforce what is constitutional. However, in times of controversy, where personal preference or aspects of religious or personal nature are at hand, the judiciary should exercise their power with finesse, thereby acting out judicial restraint. An example of such is in the case of Engel v. Vitale where Mr. Justice Black delivered the opinion of the court directing the School District’s principal to read a prayer at the commencement of each school day. In cases that do not regard whether an action is constitutional or not, the judiciary should suppress their power of judicialreview.
The famous Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka can be used to illustrate when judicialreview should be implemented to aid one or a faction in actions that are unconstitutional. In the town of Topeka, Kansas a black third-grader was forced to walk one mile through a switchyard in order to get to her black elementary school, although a white elementary school was only a few blocks away. Her parents attempted to enroll her into the white school but were repeatedly denied. The Brown v. Board of Education case was tried on behalf of the black minority that was the target...

...The area of law in which this question is concerned is judicialreview. Judicialreview can be defined as ‘… the means by which the Courts control the exercise of Governmental powers.’ The Courts will look at the way in which a decision was made, not the decision itself, to find out if any powers have been abused.
Judicialreview is an application to the Courts to assess an action or decision made by a public body on a point of public law. A particular decision may be found to be in breach of natural justice or have been made ultra vires, that is, beyond the scope of the powers. The case of O’Reilly v Mackman shows the general rule that when claiming against a public body, judicialreview should be used. Lord Diplock described this as an ‘exclusivity principle’.
The use of this principle has been criticised by academics due to the strictness of it, and has been referred to as a ‘serious setback in administrative law’ . The courts have since tried to use a broader approach in relation to the use of judicialreview. In Roy v Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster FPC , the House of Lords held that judicialreview does not have to be used where a private law right involves addressing a public law matter. This decision was supported in Mercury Communications Ltd v DG of Telecommunications ....

...﻿Judicialreview
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about court power over non-judicial branches. For court power over lower courts, see Appellate review.
Judicialreview is the doctrine under which legislative and executive actions are subject to review (and possible invalidation) by the judiciary. A specific court with judicialreview power may annul the acts of the state when it finds them incompatible with a higher authority (such as the terms of a written constitution). Judicialreview is an example of check and balances in a modern governmental system (where the judiciary checks the other branches of government). This principle is interpreted differently in different jurisdictions, which also have differing views on the different hierarchy of governmental norms. As a result, the procedure and scope of judicialreview may differ from country to country and state to state.
Contents
[hide]
1 General
1.1 Judicialreview of administrative acts
1.2 Judicialreview of primary legislation
1.2.1 Review by general courts
1.2.2 Review by a specialized court
2 Judicialreview in specific jurisdictions
3 See also
4 Notes
5 External links...

...(SRA) has the discretion ‘to award franchises to train operating companies (TOCs) and to monitor their performance’ under the Railways Act 1993 and Transport Act 2000. As a result a new franchising context, respecting three franchises that are about to expire, is undertaken by the SRA. This lead to the creation of an advisory committee which aim is to help assess the bids.
“In all three cases, the SRA follows the advice of the committee and awards the franchise to the recommended bidder.”
The general rule delegatus non potest delegare explicitly state that since the agent himself is a delegate, he cannot redelegate the authority delegated to him.
One of the leading cases, comforting the rule of delegatus non potest delegare, is Barnard v National Dock Labour Board, where The Port Manager suspended workers using powers delegated to him by to London Board, delegated to them by The Board under the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Order 1947. Indeed, it was held that the second delegation was ultra vires and the manager's decision was therefore a nullity.
In our case, the SRA took the decision without apparent delegation. However, by the committee’s comments and not considering it themselves, they feterred their discretion, which is unlawful as held in Lavender v Minister for Housing. Actually, the minister of housing and local government refused planning permission for the...